ron james Loc: Cardiff Wales uk

hi- read so many reviews on zoom lenses that getting a headache - can anybody suggest a lens for my Nikon D7500 for nature use without breaking my bank - so far top of my list is a Sigma 150-600mm sport 2nd hand average price around £950 or is there an alternative at less money out there - water birds being main target for photographs - I do have a Nikon 70-300mm but looking for more reach

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I had a Sigma 150-600 Sport with a dock. Was not super sharp across the higher range. Sold it and bought the Nikon 200-500. Super sharp across the range. Very pleased. So I crop with no adverse effects.

ron james Loc: Cardiff Wales uk

thanks Stan

I hadn't considered the 200-500 Nikon so will start the search - there does appear to be a lot of Sigma 150-600mm on offer contemporary and sport so obviously these lenses have been on my short list-

many thanks for input

vbr

ron

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Sigma sport will break your back if not your bank ! The Nikon 200-500 is pretty much the default lens for Nikon shooters as well as the 500 5.6 PF ($3600 new - IF - you can find one).

The Sigma and Tamron 100-400's are really good bang for the buck also
.!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

A lot of used ones for sale should tell you something ! ?
.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

I saw the Pound Symbol and said he is from the UK. I don't know if you want to buy from the US market or not. But, you can get some very good used lenses, at a reasonable price, from KEH Photo Shop. Shipping fee could be an issue though. Good luck.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

I’m a Canon guy but I do have the Tamron150-600G2 series and love it. I purchased mine over a year ago for 1100 new off Adorama with the dock so I imagine they are starting to drop more into your price range

Chromodynamics6 Loc: Beverly Hills Ca.

I have used the Sigma and the Tamron with my D7500. Long story short, I now own the Nikon 200-500 and I couldn't be happier. My sample front focused a little at the long end and I was able to dial it in with AF Fine Tune.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I had a 600mmF4, and though it was optically excellent, it got heavy after a while. It was also not possible to use without a tripod.

So,

I started the search. I found this article that influenced my eventual choice.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

i have borrowed the 80-400 and the 200-500 from NPS - and found the article to be on-point. And I wanted something that was closer to the 600mmF4 I was planning on selling once I found a suitable alternative. I looked at (borrowed from friends) the original 150-600 Tamron (not any better than the Nikon, only a little longer), and the 150-600 Sigma Contemporary - which I was not happy with at all.

I was waiting for the newly announced Tamron G2, but GAS got the better of me and I picked up the Sigma Sport. The comment in the review that it was a cut above the rest intrigued me, so I found a used one for $1100 and bought it. In retrospect, I might have been happier with the Tamron G2, because the ones that I have tried were just as good as the Sport, and almost 2 lb lighter. Build quality is better on the Sigma.

I found both the Sport and the G2 noticeably sharper than the Nikon, though not by a big difference. My final decision was based on how close the lens I selected was to the 600mmF4. The G2 and Sport were quite close.

I usually make decisions based on cost and performance. In this case, the cost was not a deciding factor since I was replacing a much more expensive lens. I just needed it to be very sharp and hand-holdable. The Sport - and later the G2 - satisfied my performance standards. The Nikkor didn't quite make the cut. I'm not saying it's a bad lens - not in the least. It just wasn't 600mm, did not have the environmental sealing, it did not work well at all with a 1.4 TC, though it was pretty darn close with without the TC, and having been newly released, it was only being sold for $1400. On the plus side, the autofocus was a little snappier, and the stabilization was perceptibly better. However, if you look at the last pair of images, you'll see that when it comes to stabilization, the worst one of the bunch, the Sigma Sport, was stable enough to shoot at 1/25 second hand held.

uncropped

(Download)

Cropped from above

(Download)

uncropped

(Download)

cropped from above

(Download)

uncropped, 1/25 sec

(Download)

cropped from above

(Download)

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I once read a long lenses comparison done by a couple of wildlife photographers where they compared the Sigma Contemporary, Sigma Sport, Tamron 150-600 G1 & G2.

Their rankings: IQ tie Sigma C and Tamron G2 (G2 maybe has the edge over the full zoom range), weather sealing/construction Sigma S and Tamron G2, overall best G2, second choice Sigma C, most bang for the buck Sigma C but as to the Tamron G1 they stated that if it was all they had available they could do a good job with one on a shoot for publication. The G1 was rated very good, just not as good as the others overall.
I have owned a G1 and now own a G2. I could get by with either but the G2 is faster on the AF and a bit sharper at some lengths and has better anti-vibration - the weather sealing and construction got even better then the already good G1.

The Sigma S won for heaviest. Hey if you are out and a punk tries to mug you and steal your photo stuff it would make a good war club. Better to replace a $2000 US lens than all your gear and maybe end up in hospital or dead. Besides wouldn't it be a great video of the mugger in the Emergency room in cuffs and the doctor asks "What happened?" "This old guy/gal beat me with a giant camera lens." While the cops who brought him/her (gender equality, right) in are doing a LMAO in the back ground

I am a Canon shooter, I keep my Tamron G2 on a tripod and gimbal head with an 80D most of the time. For walking around hand holding I have a Canon 100-400L mk II (used to have a mk I) used with and without the 1.4x on a 7DII with pistol grip on the tripod mount.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

All of the Tamron G2 lenses are very good, and a bargain bought Brand New. The Tamron 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and the 150-600mm G2 lenses, are worth looking into, if you don't want to break the bank. Someone I know purchased the 70-200mm f2.8 G2 in Nikon Mount for $1400. He said it doesn't focus as fast as the newest version Nikon 70-200mm f2.8E FL ED. But, it was half the price of the Nikon. They work very well on Canon and Nikon Mounts.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'd recommend the Tamron 150-600mm "G2"... that's the newer, improved version. Seems sharper than either the original Tamron or the Sigma... especially at the 600mm end of the zoom.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

First of all, I'm not a professional by any standards, but I want my photos to be as sharp as possible when I shoot a subject at great distances. I also have to watch my money closely. I bought a Tamron 150-600 G2 a little over a year ago and it has served me very well. When I first got the lens, not ever having used a long focal length, I was disappointed with the results at the 600mm length. I thought the lens might be needing tuned. I still couldn't bring myself to make changes to the settings so I started to read some opinions about shooting at long focal length, like turning off the stabilization when using a tripod, breathing properly when hand holding etc. After practicing these techniques I found the lens to be very good with what the manufacturer settings are. I am very pleased with the results now and it has taught me to be a more conscientious photographer.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The Tamron 150-600mm is $899(maybe £745), but it will cost less used or refurbished.

https://www.adorama.com/l/?searchinfo=tamron+sp+150-600mm+nikon

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

The Nikon 200-500 is not weather resistant!!!! which also means dust!!! Nor is the Sigma Contemporary.